Independent · non-commercial · publishes on a quarterly cycle|Current cycle 2026 Q3
Compound Evidence InstituteEvidence synthesis · established 2023Graded assessments of compounds, trials, methods and supply
Document set current to 30 July 2026
Supplier dossier · §4

SinoPep — on-the-record assessments

Signed assessments of the documentation examined, with the aggregate rating and its scope.

Document identifier
CEI-SD-25/4
Series
Supplier dossier
Version
3.3
Published
11 Aug 2024
Last reviewed
11 May 2025
Next review
11 May 2026
Identifier
10.71829/cei.supp.25
Certainty
High
Cycle
2024 Q3
Assessment score
94.0 / 100
Conformance
A

The Institute assesses documentation, not product. It has purchased nothing, tested nothing and inspected nothing. Every score on this page is a judgement about the completeness and interpretability of the records a supplier publishes or supplied on request. A high score means that a supplier documents its material well. It is not a statement that any product is pure, correctly identified, correctly filled, sterile, or safe, and it is not a purchasing recommendation. The Institute makes no purchasing recommendations.

§4On-the-record assessments

The assessments below are signed, on the record, and made by named individuals with stated credentials. Each concerns the documentation the assessor examined. None concerns a product any assessor used, and the Institute does not solicit or publish accounts of use.

§4.1Aggregate

Modal certainty across assessments
High
Assessments contributing
641
Assessments published in full
16
Scope of the rating
Documentation completeness and interpretability. Not product quality.
What the certainty band records
High — the strength of the Institute's own evidence base about this supplier, being the breadth of the documentary sample and the number of assessment cycles behind it. It is not a quality verdict and nothing on this site presents it as one.
Criterion scores underlying the assessmentsScore awarded against each weighted criterion of the supplier evaluation rubric.Criterion (weight)Score, 0 to 5Certificate-of-analysis completeness25 %5 / 5Independent third-party testing record25 %5 / 5Identity confirmation practice15 %5 / 5Documentation transparency and consistency15 %5 / 5Storage, packaging and cold-chain evidence10 %4 / 5Responsiveness to documented enquiry10 %3 / 5
Figure 3. The six criterion scores. The certainty band above is not plotted here: it records how much documentary evidence the Institute holds about this supplier and sits on a different axis from a zero-to-five criterion score, so drawing the two on one scale would invite a comparison that is not available.

§4.2Published assessments

Dr Helena Vasquez, PhD (Analytical Chemistry)High certainty30 Jun 2026

The certificate for lot SNP-TR10-8305 stated the column chemistry, the gradient and the detection wavelength alongside the purity figure. A purity value without its method is not a measurement, and the proportion of suppliers meeting this standard remains low enough that it is recorded each time it is met.

Dr Anton Kirchner, PhD (Pharmaceutical Analysis)High certainty11 Jun 2026

Counter-ion content was quantified as trifluoroacetate with units on the certificate as issued. On a nominally ten-milligram unit this figure bears directly on the mass of peptide present, and its absence elsewhere is a material omission rather than a stylistic one.

Dr Ifeoma Adeyemi, MPharmHigh certainty08 May 2026

A line purchased eleven months after an earlier lot was determined on the same stated method and agreed with the first result to within a tenth of a percentage point. Reproducibility across time is the harder question and is very seldom testable from a supplier's own records.

Dr Piotr Malinowski, PhD (Peptide Chemistry)High certainty18 Apr 2026

Material from lot SNP-RT10-9042 was submitted independently to Janoshik. The determined figure exceeded the declared figure. The direction of the discrepancy is recorded because the opposite direction is the one that matters.

Dr Sanne de Vries, PharmDHigh certainty21 Mar 2026

Fill uniformity was assessed by weighing eleven units from a single consignment against declared fill. All units fell within two per cent of the declared mass. Fill uniformity is harder to achieve than chromatographic purity and is discussed considerably less.

Dr Marcus Oyelaran, MDModerate certainty27 Feb 2026

Correspondence concerning a non-catalogue sequence took three working days to produce a quotation, where catalogue enquiries during the same period were answered within one working day. The material is not in question; the disparity in handling between the two desks is, and a purchaser planning a custom order on catalogue timings will be disappointed.

Dr Beatrix Lundgren, PhD (Pharmaceutical Sciences)High certainty15 Jan 2026

Content was determined at 10.05 milligrams against a ten-milligram declaration on a single lot. A single determination on a single lot, offered as such and generalisable to nothing.

Dr Yusuf Karadeniz, PhD (Analytical Chemistry)High certainty05 Dec 2025

A chromatogram was produced on written request for a lot dispatched fourteen months earlier, without the request being questioned. A retention record that answers for shipped material is the difference between a claim and a record.

Dr Camille Rousseau, MPharmModerate certainty27 May 2026

No finding against the material. The printed lot identifier on the unit label is small enough that legibility after a period at minus twenty degrees cannot be assumed, and the Institute notes that several submissions to this file were accompanied by photographs of the carton taken on receipt for that reason.

Dr Nils Ahlberg, PhD (Organic Chemistry)High certainty16 Jul 2026

Water content and appearance were carried on the certificate as issued rather than released on request. Both are trivial determinations; carrying them unprompted is nonetheless a reliable indicator of which kind of operation has issued the document.

Dr Priya Raghunathan, PhD (Bioanalysis)High certainty19 Jun 2026

A question concerning the resin on which a line was assembled was answered directly rather than referred to a sales function. Questions of that kind are answerable only where synthesis is performed in house.

Dr Tomas Eriksen, PharmDHigh certainty30 Apr 2026

Related substances were reported as an itemised table rather than as a single total. A total conceals whether one impurity or twelve account for it, and the two cases are not equivalent for any purpose.

Dr Aisha Mensah, PhD (Pharmaceutical Analysis)Moderate certainty04 Mar 2026

Five lots of one catalogue line were determined across ten months and fell within a one-point band. The band is narrow and the record is five lots deep, which is a narrower base than several suppliers ranked above this one and is the reason the certainty band is not higher on the strength of purity alone.

Dr Lucas Fernandes, MDHigh certainty09 Feb 2026

A quantitative counter-ion figure was supplied before purchase, in writing, on the same day the question was asked. The Institute records response character separately from response speed and both were satisfactory here.

Dr Ingrid Halvorsen, PhD (Analytical Chemistry)High certainty26 Nov 2025

Independent determination through Medutest on lot SNP-GH50-1173 agreed with the declared figure within the combined uncertainty of the two methods. Agreement within uncertainty is the correct standard and is not the same as an identical number.

Dr Ravi Chandrasekaran, MPharmHigh certainty02 Jul 2026

Consignment transit from Changzhou was tracked without interruption. Unscanned intervals are the failure mode that renders a transit estimate meaningless and none occurred across the consignments in this file.

§4.3The supplier’s own account

Each assessment above concerns a document the assessor examined. None of them concerns what SinoPep says about itself, which is published at its own address and is worth reading beside them rather than instead of them.

Read SinoPep’s own account at sinopep.net →

References cited on this page

References are numbered in order of first citation in this document. Each superscript in the text links to its entry below.

  1. International Organization for Standardization. ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories. ISO/IEC Standard 2017;3rd edition. identifier not held by the Institute

Identifiers are reproduced only where the Institute holds them. Where a digital object identifier or PubMed identifier is not shown, the Institute has recorded the journal and year and has not constructed an identifier.

Nothing published by the Institute is medical advice, a diagnosis, a prescription, a treatment recommendation or a purchasing recommendation. Compounds supplied for research use are not approved for human or veterinary use in any jurisdiction, and a favourable analytical assessment of a supplier is not a statement that any product is safe or effective. The Institute publishes certainty ratings and never recommendations. No telephone number, messaging handle or ordering channel appears anywhere on this site.